Ah, I see. Well, I am gonna be a bit of a dick and say that it is not 'our' freedom that is being given up for international safety here. Cheap, I know, but as I said, I have room to be pragmatic.

Do I understand you correctly if I say that you are willing to give up privacy to gain safety then?

Privacy is a part of liberty, but I realize there's more to liberty than that. Right now I'm thinking that maybe I should of rephrased my question

To declare that a personal, inner experience gives certainty about the workings of the universe is to assign far too much value to one’s subjective sense of conviction.
I’m not that arrogant.
The brain, marvelous instrument though it is, isn’t infallible. It can misfire, seize or hallucinate, and it can do so in a way that’s utterly indistinguishable from reality to the person experiencing it.

Do I understand you correctly if I say that you are willing to give up privacy to gain safety then?

Privacy is a part of liberty, but I realize there's more to liberty than that. Right now I'm thinking that maybe I should of rephrased my question

I'd prefer not to give up my own. I think you didn't understand how loaded my answer was. I would have preferred not to give a blunt answer.
I am willing to give up the other guy's privacy for their safety and mine, in this situation. I hope it is not a permanent affair and don't think it will be. But, that's how I feel about it right now.

I'd prefer not to give up my own. I think you didn't understand how loaded my answer was. I would have preferred not to give a blunt answer.
I am willing to give up the other guy's privacy for their safety and mine, in this situation. I hope it is not a permanent affair and don't think it will be. But, that's how I feel about it right now.

what if that kind of behaviour make the other guys angry and he decide to payback by tacking you safty

"We always knew that our rights can only be regained by force and that is why we have chosen the ammunition box instead of the ballot box"
"*ل*مة *ل*ي ل* *حس* ص**عة *لمو* ل* *حس* ص**عة *لحي*ة"

what if that kind of behaviour make the other guys angry and he decide to payback by tacking you safty

If you are referring to the Taliban/al-Qaeda, they will hate 'us' no matter what our governments and militaries do, so I don't care about how they feel about the surveillance equipment. Let them be angry. It'll just get them beaten down again and again.

If you are referring to average, rational citizens, I would hope, that even though the measures are stern, they would understand why they might be used, and still appreciate the efforts made by Coalition and Afghan governmental/police forces to oust the Taliban from holding power in their country. There has obviously been a lot of tension recently with abhorrent, freak events like the massacre of civilians by Sgt. Bales, but people like that do not represent the majority of armed forces personnel by a long shot.

Getting annoyed by surveillance cameras is no excuse for murdering people, and I resent the insinuation.

Do I understand you correctly if I say that you are willing to give up privacy to gain safety then?

Privacy is a part of liberty, but I realize there's more to liberty than that. Right now I'm thinking that maybe I should of rephrased my question

If they did this in the US, there is nothing in our laws against it. It gets sketchier if they're using advanced camera equipment to look inside someone's house with a greater degree of view than what would be possible from the street or whatever, but they can (and do) still do it.

I mean, the US Constitution doesn't even have a clause defining privacy as a right. Obviously the founding fathers understood that security was important.

Originally Posted by Callace

Considering you just linked a graph with no data plotted on it as factual evidence, I think Stanton can infer whatever the hell he wants.

Afghanistan's been torn by war for decades, and an insurgency remains there now. This strikes me as far less sinister then things like the online snooping bill being introduced in the UK, where the police have the power to monitor all e-mails and online communications.

Well, considering the shit that still happens there on a regular basis, I'm not surprised. For you folks who say "well what if they did this at home!" They already do, just not with retarded blimps. You have ZERO expectation of privacy while out in public, it is perfectly legal for the police to monitor your actions when out and about, and they do. Stop-light cameras, among others, do this already. If it helps lower crime or catch criminals easier, that's a good thing. Private businesses have security cameras for a reason.

Yes, having a camera pointed in my bedroom window or installed in my ceiling would be pushing it. But if there is a crime or violence problem in an area, I wouldn't be opposed to heavier public monitoring.

Originally Posted by Masark

People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.

Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

If you are referring to the Taliban/al-Qaeda, they will hate 'us' no matter what our governments and militaries do, so I don't care about how they feel about the surveillance equipment. Let them be angry. It'll just get them beaten down again and again.

I have to disagree :P The Taliban never really 'hated' us..
The shit with them only started after we invaded their country.
Those guys were even so nice to propose an extradition of OBL.